Author
Topic: 35mm 1.4 (Read 2631 times)

I am currently missing a large aperture lens. I am really looking for one for portraits And wedding/event environments. I looked at the sigma compared to the canon and it is way better based of the digital picture ISO 12800. Also there is the 35mm f2 is that looks pretty amazing but I first want to know if there is a huge difference between 1.4 And 2 at 35mm. If not that huge the is on the f2 would be amazing for video for me. I have wanted a 50mm for a while but am just waiting because I would like to see a new one. The 50mm 1.2 and 1.4 is so close in quality but I would like to buy a sealed lens that isn't one I am going to want to upgrade Down the road.

Is a 35mm tight enough that the background stays blurred? Or would waiting for a upgraded 50 be better?

Logged

canon rumors FORUM

You can certainly blur a background with a 35/1.4, but if you shoot 'tight' for a portrait at 35mm on FF, you'll need to be close enough that perspective distortion will be a problem - most subjects don't think big noses are a flattering look! On APS-C, 35mm is 'normal' and that works for portraits. A 35mm lens is usually used for 'environmental' portraits where you want to show the subject in the scene. Tight portraits are usually done with an 85mm or 135mm lens (on FF).

Like any f1.4 and f2.0 lenses of the same focal length, there is exactly one stop difference between them - so the larger aperture lens will have the option of letting you shoot at the same action stopping shutter speed and ISO in half the given light, and it will also let you blur out the background twice as much. However, the Canon 35/2 does have a four stop IS system, so if you're shooting stationary subjects in low light without a tripod, the Canon 35/2 will let you get away with 1/8th of the light (three stops lower).

To compare DoF to 50m lenses is difficult as you'll no doubt be closer up for the same framing with a 35, but generally speaking a 35/1.4 is about the same in terms of DoF as a 50/2 lens, and a 35/2 is about the same as a 50/2.8.

And not one of these four lenses (Sigma 35/1.4, Canon 35/2 IS, Canon 50/1.2 L or Canon 50/1.4) is sealed. As Neuro said, 85 to 135 is much better for portraits. 85L and 135L are probably top of the list - again, neither of which are sealed.

Are you shooting on a crop body or a ff? For what it's worth, I have a 35/50/85/135 set of primes for my 5DII and the 35/1.4 ends up on the front more often than any other lens - it's a very useful focal range. And I usually shoot it wide open. Now, is there much difference between 1.4 and 2.0? I think so - at 35mm, it's less about blurring the background completely - and more about adding a subtle blur that adds an element of 3 dimensionality to your images. That extra stop gives your images more pop, more depth. I would recommend going for the extra stop if your budget allows.

I just received the Sigma 35/1.4 this morning, and I'm very impressed with it so far. Quite amazed at corner sharpness on the 7D wide open (obvious since it's a full frame lens, but it's better than I expected).

For "wedding/event environments" I was finding the Canon 50/1.4 too long (and dreamy looking wide open), and for photographing people indoors I would much rather have the extra stop of the Sigma 35/1.4 over the IS of the Canon 35/2. The 50mm is probably more suited to single person portraits using a crop body though.

I have 5d mark iii and ii. Yes i did mean ISO 12233.I have the 85mm 1.8(don't really like 85mm 1.2ii just because of focus method). So i have the tighter portraits for the most part covered.I am deciding between the 35 f2 is and 35 1.4(sigma) or waiting on a improved 50mm.I think probably one of the best ways would be to "lock" my 16-35 at 35 and play with that focal length for a bit. I know i want a fast 50(my 50 1.8ii and FD 50 1.8 are among my favorite lenses).I guess i am just unsure of the value of the 35mm and it seems to be a valuable to a lot of my type of photography and videography. I appreciate all your input. Its good to hear that the sigma is doing so well. I have never bought anything non-canon so i am a little apprehensive but it seems to be a great way to go. Hope Canon comes out with a upgraded L before i make my decision as that would probably change things

I am currently missing a large aperture lens. I am really looking for one for portraits And wedding/event environments. I looked at the sigma compared to the canon and it is way better based of the digital picture ISO 12800. Also there is the 35mm f2 is that looks pretty amazing but I first want to know if there is a huge difference between 1.4 And 2 at 35mm. If not that huge the is on the f2 would be amazing for video for me. I have wanted a 50mm for a while but am just waiting because I would like to see a new one. The 50mm 1.2 and 1.4 is so close in quality but I would like to buy a sealed lens that isn't one I am going to want to upgrade Down the road.

Is a 35mm tight enough that the background stays blurred? Or would waiting for a upgraded 50 be better?

It depends how much blur you want; you can get fantastic blur from the Sigma at 1.4, where it's surprisingly sharp, but to maximize it you have to get close enough to risk distortion on your subject (not to mention making him/her uncomfortable by having a lens so close) - if your camera is FF, that is. Both it and the Canon IS provide great blur at f/2 also - it's just not quite as smeared out. They're both superb lenses, but one huge advantage that the Sigma has over the Canon (and, as far as I can tell, most other fast primes wider than c. 100mm) is that it has negligible coma; the Canon IS has rather a lot (similar, if lenstip and Rockwell are right, to the 35L and 35 f/2 non-IS, neither of which I've used). Of course, if it doesn't bother you, or you don't take photos in situations where it's likely to show, it hardly matters, but I returned the Canon for that reason.

In my opinion, if you already have a 50/1.8 then the Sigma 35/1.4 is the way to go.The only downside I can think of is that the focus throw on the Sigma is only 90°, which you might not find adequate for video, depending on your uses.I was worried about buying another Sigma after issues I've had with them in the past, but it does seem like they've upped their game, as many reviews of this lens have said.

Hope Canon comes out with a upgraded L before i make my decision as that would probably change things

So you plan to take your time with this decision then? Either way, I don't even want to imagine what the price tag on a 35L II would be.

I was one of those who foolishly thought that the 35L II release was imminent several months ago...while I still think it will be one of the first in the L prime refresh cycle, I simply don't think canon will follow or be pressured by anything sigma does...however good the Sigma is.

Canon has its customer base well pegged, the hardcore canon loyalist may flirt with other brands, may buy at lower price interim, but will always *desire* the L version, and buy one if at all possible...it is very easy for canon to set the pace and the order in which they refresh these lenses.

Personally, I am ok with the 35L...it is plenty sharp for my real world uses... it is one of my oldest much used lenses ...if pressed, I will request less LoCA and weather sealing in the new version. But a happy camper otherwise.

Here are few pics, all made with 35 1.4. I rented it, with intent to buy, but I ended up cropping many, so 35 is a bit too wide for me. I picked few uncropped, as examples, so these are not particularly good ones (not the worst either), but they showcase something:first - 1.4 bokehsecond - 2.0 bokehthird - example of framing that I eventually cropped